Robinson v. Duncan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• faulting the plaintiff for “presenting] nothing aside from conclusory allegations from which a reasonably jury could conclude that [the decision-maker] acted with discriminatory or retaliatory animus.”
• faulting the plaintiff for “present[ing] nothing aside from conclusory allegations from which a reasonably jury could conclude that [the decision-maker] acted with discriminatory or retaliatory animus.”
• “Given such circumstances, the temporal proximity of plaintiff’s EEO action and the Agency’s adverse employment action do not rebut the Agency’s legitimate proffer[.]”
• “[A] court may not ‘second guess an employer’s personnel decision absent [a] demonstrably discriminatory motive.’” (quoting Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).